'''Arizona Proposition 102''', known by its supporters as the '''Marriage Protection Amendment''', appeared on the [[Arizona 2008 ballot measures|November 4, 2008 ballot]] in [[Arizona]] as a [[legislatively-referred constitutional amendment]]. It amended the [[Arizona Constitution|Arizona Constitution]] to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

+

'''Arizona Proposition 102''', known by its supporters as the '''Marriage Protection Amendment''', appeared as a [[legislatively-referred constitutional amendment]] on the [[Arizona 2008 ballot measures|November 4, 2008 ballot]] in [[Arizona]], where it was '''approved'''. It amended the [[Arizona Constitution|Arizona Constitution]] to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Results according to the [[Arizona Secretary of State]] as of November 19, 2008. These results are unofficially pending the official canvass on December 1, 2008. <ref>[http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/General/2008_general_results_query.htm Arizona Elections Division, 2008 Election Results]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is already prohibited in Arizona, and Arizona courts have upheld that ban. Proponents argued that a constitutional amendment provides a higher legal level of protection for their preferences about same-sex marriage than does a statute. In particular, that a constitutional amendment will withstand judicial scrutiny better than a statute.

Same-sex marriage is already prohibited in Arizona, and Arizona courts have upheld that ban. Proponents argued that a constitutional amendment provides a higher legal level of protection for their preferences about same-sex marriage than does a statute. In particular, that a constitutional amendment will withstand judicial scrutiny better than a statute.

Line 40:

Line 27:

* Jim Weiers

* Jim Weiers

* Center for Arizona Policy

* Center for Arizona Policy

−

* John McCain<ref>[http://www.azfamily.com/news/elections/stories/phoenix-local-news-100608-prop-102.e89c8226.html ''azfamily.com:'' "Proposition defining man-woman marriage is back on the ballot," Oct 6, 2008]</ref>

+

* John McCain

===Donors to Yes on 102 campaign===

===Donors to Yes on 102 campaign===

Line 46:

Line 33:

Through October 22, about $7.6 million had been raised by financial donors to the "Yes on 102" campaign. This is approximately 17 times the amount that opponents have raised.<ref>[http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/09/07/20080907contributions0907.html ''Arizona Central:'' "160 donors back state marriage measure," September 7, 2008]</ref>,<ref>[http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=13215 ''Gay & Lesbian Times'', "Arizona marriage ban advocates vastly out-fundraise opposition", October 9, 2008]</ref>, <ref name="money">[http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/frontpage/100739.php ''Arizona Republic'', "Big money behind some ballot props", October 27]</ref>

Through October 22, about $7.6 million had been raised by financial donors to the "Yes on 102" campaign. This is approximately 17 times the amount that opponents have raised.<ref>[http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/09/07/20080907contributions0907.html ''Arizona Central:'' "160 donors back state marriage measure," September 7, 2008]</ref>,<ref>[http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=13215 ''Gay & Lesbian Times'', "Arizona marriage ban advocates vastly out-fundraise opposition", October 9, 2008]</ref>, <ref name="money">[http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/frontpage/100739.php ''Arizona Republic'', "Big money behind some ballot props", October 27]</ref>

−

Some of the larger donors to the campaign include:<ref>[http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/story.cfm?id=9620 ''Arizona Capitol Times'', "Individuals donate big money to marriage amendment", October 7, 2008]</ref>

+

Some of the larger donors to the campaign include:

* Wilford and Kathleen Andersen, Mesa, $100,000

* Wilford and Kathleen Andersen, Mesa, $100,000

Line 62:

Line 49:

* Crisis Pregnancy Centers of Greater Phoenix, $100,000

* Crisis Pregnancy Centers of Greater Phoenix, $100,000

−

In December, Dan Frazier, who describes himself as a "gay rights supporter", filed a complaint against the "Yes for Marriage" committee with the [[Arizona Secretary of State]] on the grounds that when the campaign filed its mandatory financial disclosure forms throughout the campaign, it listed an occupation for only about one out of five of its donors. Election official Joe Kanefield, acting on the complaint, sent a letter to the "Yes for Marriage" campaign. The campaign provided Kanefield with "several hundred pages of affidavits saying the information had been requested from the donors". Kanefield says that this satisfies the legal requirements.<ref>[http://www.yumasun.com/news/gay_46796___article.html/backers_list.html ''Yuma Sun'', "State: Backers of gay marriage ban did not properly fill out campaign donor list", December 30, 2008]</ref>

+

In December, Dan Frazier, who describes himself as a "gay rights supporter", filed a complaint against the "Yes for Marriage" committee with the [[Arizona Secretary of State]] on the grounds that when the campaign filed its mandatory financial disclosure forms throughout the campaign, it listed an occupation for only about one out of five of its donors. Election official Joe Kanefield, acting on the complaint, sent a letter to the "Yes for Marriage" campaign. The campaign provided Kanefield with "several hundred pages of affidavits saying the information had been requested from the donors." Kanefield says that this satisfies the legal requirements.<ref>[http://www.yumasun.com/news/gay_46796___article.html/backers_list.html ''Yuma Sun'', "State: Backers of gay marriage ban did not properly fill out campaign donor list", December 30, 2008]</ref>

−

+

===Supporting arguments===

===Supporting arguments===

Line 122:

Line 109:

==Path to the ballot==

==Path to the ballot==

−

In the final hours of the [[Arizona State Legislature|state legislative]] session in late June, state senators voted to place the measure on the [[Arizona 2008 ballot measures|November 2008 ballot]].<ref>[http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/06/27/20080627samesexvote0627-ON.html ''Arizona Central:'' "Legislature puts gay marriage proposal on ballot," June 27, 2008]</ref>,<ref>[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNbSV6pukrmaX7EWJp6-Q83CkVJQD91IS1R00 ''Associated Press:'' "Arizona puts gay marriage ban on ballot, again," June 27, 2008]</ref> The Arizona State Senate voted 16-4, overwhelmingly in favor of placing the measure on the ballot.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007734.cfm ''CitizenLink.org:'' "Good News: Arizona Marriage Amendment Headed to Ballot," Jun. 30, 2008]</ref>

+

In the final hours of the [[Arizona State Legislature|state legislative]] session in late June, state senators voted to place the measure on the [[Arizona 2008 ballot measures|November 2008 ballot]].<ref>[http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/06/27/20080627samesexvote0627-ON.html ''Arizona Central:'' "Legislature puts gay marriage proposal on ballot," June 27, 2008]</ref>

===Investigation of debate conduct===

===Investigation of debate conduct===

−

On July 27, the [[Arizona State Legislature|Ethics Committee of the Arizona Senate]] voted 3-2 on Monday to formally investigate a complaint filed by state senator [[Ken Cheuvront]], D-Phoenix, that Republican Sen. [[Jack Harper]] broke Senate rules on June 27, the last day of the 2008 legislative session, when he ended the filibuster tactics of other state senators seeking to postpone or prevent the vote to put Prop. 102 on the ballot.

+

On July 27, the [[Arizona State Legislature|Ethics Committee of the Arizona Senate]] voted 3-2 on Monday to formally investigate a complaint filed by state senator [[Ken Cheuvront]], D-Phoenix, that Republican Sen. [[Jack Harper]] broke Senate rules on June 27, the last day of the 2008 legislative session, when he ended the [[filibuster]] tactics of other state senators seeking to postpone or prevent the vote to put Prop. 102 on the ballot.

−

The complaint accuses Harper of "abruptly" transferring the right to speak from one of the senators participating in the filibuster to a supporter of Prop. 102.<ref>[http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/92134.php ''Tucson Citizen:'' "State senator faces ethics probe in same-sex marriage debate," July 29, 2008]</ref>

+

The complaint accuses Harper of "abruptly" transferring the right to speak from one of the senators participating in the [[filibuster]] to a supporter of Prop. 102.<ref>[http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/92134.php ''Tucson Citizen:'' "State senator faces ethics probe in same-sex marriage debate," July 29, 2008]</ref>

Election results

Same-sex marriage is already prohibited in Arizona, and Arizona courts have upheld that ban. Proponents argued that a constitutional amendment provides a higher legal level of protection for their preferences about same-sex marriage than does a statute. In particular, that a constitutional amendment will withstand judicial scrutiny better than a statute.

Arizona is the only state whose voters have rejected a same-sex marriage ban. The 2006 rejection of Proposition 107 was widely attributed to provisions interpreted to prohibit government recognition of domestic partnerships and civil unions. [2]

Twenty-six states have constitutional amendments that bar the recognition of same-sex marriage.

Supporters

Senate President Tim Bee, R-Tucson, and fifteen other Republican state Senators sponsored the bill in the state legislature to put Proposition 102 on the ballot. House Speaker Jim Weiers and 30 other members of the House proposed an identical bill. The group Yes for Marriage subsequently became the official campaign organization in favor of the ballot initiative.

Supporters include:

Tim Bee, R-Tucson

Jim Weiers

Center for Arizona Policy

John McCain

Donors to Yes on 102 campaign

Through October 22, about $7.6 million had been raised by financial donors to the "Yes on 102" campaign. This is approximately 17 times the amount that opponents have raised.[3],[4], [5]

Some of the larger donors to the campaign include:

Wilford and Kathleen Andersen, Mesa, $100,000

LeSueur Family Trust, Mesa, $100,000

TTEE's Wagner Family Trust, Peoria, $100,000

Jeff and Holly Whiteman, Mesa, $100,000

Derek and Danielle Wright, Peoria, $100,000

Pete King Corporation, Phoenix, $100,000

Crisis Pregnancy Centers of Greater Phoenix, $100,000

In December, Dan Frazier, who describes himself as a "gay rights supporter", filed a complaint against the "Yes for Marriage" committee with the Arizona Secretary of State on the grounds that when the campaign filed its mandatory financial disclosure forms throughout the campaign, it listed an occupation for only about one out of five of its donors. Election official Joe Kanefield, acting on the complaint, sent a letter to the "Yes for Marriage" campaign. The campaign provided Kanefield with "several hundred pages of affidavits saying the information had been requested from the donors." Kanefield says that this satisfies the legal requirements.[6]

Supporting arguments

Supporters made the following general claims in support of the amendment:

In May, 2008 California judges voted to redefine marriage.

On October 10, 2008 Connecticut judges also voted to redefine marriage.

The same thing can happen here.

A “YES” vote prevents judges and politicians from redefining marriage and leaves marriage’s essential meaning in the hands of the people of Arizona.

"Yes on 102" campaign video

Opposition

According to Barbara McCullogh Jones, Executive Director of Equality Arizona, "No one can deny this bill was nothing more than a referendum on the LGBT community – a political fundraiser to fuel the anti-gay industry in Arizona."

Path to the ballot

Investigation of debate conduct

On July 27, the Ethics Committee of the Arizona Senate voted 3-2 on Monday to formally investigate a complaint filed by state senator Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix, that Republican Sen. Jack Harper broke Senate rules on June 27, the last day of the 2008 legislative session, when he ended the filibuster tactics of other state senators seeking to postpone or prevent the vote to put Prop. 102 on the ballot.

The complaint accuses Harper of "abruptly" transferring the right to speak from one of the senators participating in the filibuster to a supporter of Prop. 102.[13]

The Senate Ethics Committee voted along party lines 3-2, to dismiss the complaint on August 12, 2008.